Franklin County, Indiana Passes 2nd Amendment Preservation Ordinance

While a number of states are currently considering legislation to nullify federal gun laws, rules, acts, orders and regulations, and various sheriffs around the country are issuing notice that they will not enforce any such federal laws, a new grassroots undercurrent could be building to support those efforts: local governments nullifying unconstitutional federal acts that violate the 2nd Amendment.

Last week, Beaufort County, North Carolina became the first in the country to do so. On Tuesday, Franklin County, Indiana joined them by passing a 2nd Amendment Preservation Ordinance. It passed unanimously, and County Commissioner Scott M. McDonough says they mean business.

“The citizens of Franklin County take the Constitution seriously and the State and Federal government need to do so as well,” he said.

The ordinance itself is an extremely strong stand in support of the 2nd Amendment. It reads, in part:

All federal acts, laws, orders, rules or regulations regarding firearms are a violation of the 2nd Amendment

The ordinance continues:

The Franklin County Board of Commissioners declares that all federal acts, laws, orders, rules, regulations – past, present or future – in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States are not authorized by the Constitution of the United States and violate its true meaning and intent as given by the Founders and Ratifiers; and are hereby declared to be invalid in this county, shall not be recognized by this county, are specifically rejected by this county, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this county.

Recognizing that federal acts almost always require support, logistics and the like from state or local governments, the final portion of the bill is what would give it the most effect in helping protect the rights of the people living there:

It shall be the duty of the Sheriff of this County to take all measures as may be necessary to prevent the enforcement of any federal acts, laws, orders, rules, or regulations in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The first step that a sheriff should take? Refuse to comply with unconstitutional federal acts.

Need Sheriffs to deputize all citizens in their County as a Ready Reserve Rescue unit, thus thwarting federal gun restrictions. Optional training might be available but not mandatory. Similar to the Swiss militia system.

The 2nd Amendment Preservation Ordinance passed by the Franklin County Board of Commissioners has been pretty well laughed at and mocked as worthless and juvenile by many comments because commenters believe they have no authority to uphold it. Which would certainly be a David and Goliath type scenario if it came to its logical conclusion.
And I do agree that the States should develop some ability to manage without the aid of the Federal Government’s many programs and monies whether they make such a stand or not. But it doesn’t seem likely considering the nature of today’s culture considering financial handouts. Its always line up with hands out whether you need it or not.
But rather than make fun or mock them for this action you might think of it in different terms. The counties within the states are sending a message that they do not approve and will take some measures to stop the Federal Government from disarming the citizens of that county. Even if you find this pitiful and funny, you must see that if the majority of the counties within each state passed similar ordinances the message would be something to ponder.
I don’t believe the Obama Administration is ready to open fire on us (American citizens)… yet. Or to become involved in a ‘take over’ of each state, whether with military involvement or using the threat of denying Federal money to gain control and force their will upon the states. I don’t believe they are ready to send in appointed governors, police etc now. The more counties and states making this statement regardless of their ability to follow through is still an important message. We are still a very large nation with many places to search for resisters. That would cost money, oh I forgot this administration would just make more, money and cost mean nothing to them. But to use militarily force against each state to conform to the will of the administration isn’t something their ready to do yet.
As mentioned in the The Crisis of Day by ret sheriff Richard Mack in his Supreme Court ruling – the Supreme Court has alright ruled on the state’s sovereignty. I realize to this administation that means nothing, only his personal will is the goal.
I believe if all or the majority of the states passed a similar legislation with stronger language it would send a message. It has to begin with one and then each additional makes the message stronger. It would make their voice heard. And as each one makes the step it would be heard by the other states not yet committed. I don’t see this as futile, stupid or funny. Again, I do think the language should be stronger.
But a history, political science or law class is not necessarily what is needed in our comments. I think real solutions should be discussed if there are any. And getting stuck in the court system wouldn’t help our situation. That is just what the Obama Administration would want to create a dire need for his take over. Many a history lesson is a good place to start. How could a tyrantical force as strong as the American federal government be faced down?
The states need unified and the ability to communicate and support that obviously the elected officals can’t provide – most of them would sell their own children for a vacation to Cancun. Our safery and protection is not within their understanding.
So what do we do, lay down and smile – act like being a slave is fun? I still think doing what they are doing is something every state needs to do to communicate.
I have to say again that the elected officials do not represent the beliefs and desires of the residents of the state they were elected from , they are just the lesser of two evil people. … maybe.

I can appreciate the aim of this legislation; but I have no confidence of its effectiveness.
Starting about 25 years ago I began research into financial conditions of cities, counties and states, as documented thru their financial reports. Of all those I examined (20-30), the revenue of every one was partly (30% to 50%) derived from federal handouts. See (http://redressone.wordpress.com/who-owns/)
If there’s a shoving match between feds and state (county or city), will state bureaucrats have the backbone to give up their booty from the feds?
Will the Pied Piper tear up his invoice?
Of course not.
If we are to preserve our rights, we have to learn lessons of American Founders; and there’s not a lawyer, law professor, or judge who can, or will, tell you such lessons. You can read all court reporters and law reviews pertaining to redress, and you might find two or three obscure remarks about the full power of the right of redress.
Such knowledge has been erased from our sanitized law and history books. I accidentally discovered a small fragment of this knowledge twenty years ago. It set me on a quest to find more; after reading 30,000 to 50,000 pages of original history and law books, I found facts of history we are not supposed to know. Here is a short account of how English rebels (1620-1650) (http://redressone.wordpress.com/one-part-in-ten-thousand/) brought down judges and tax collectors, bishops and kings who thot they had a divine right to impose taxes or debt – or disarm – other men without the latters’ consent; men who, 150 years later, would guide American rebels.
What can we do to push back the current frenzy to grab guns? Instead of protesting this frenzy, I suggest that we throw a spotlight on the treachery of those who orchestrate this frenzy. It was thru Operation Fast and Furious that the Justice Department and ATF armed Mexican drug cartels. This led to numerous terrorist acts on both sides of the Mex/American border. The ultimate object was to use these terrorist acts as justification to seize or ban certain guns within the US. See (http://www.businessinsider.com/stratfor-the-us-works-with-cartels-2012-9)
But low-level bureaucrats blew the whistle. Strangely, the Justice Department saw no reason to prosecute itself for this crime/treason.
I suggest that we use the same power American Founders used: petition Congress to appropriate $10 million (you choose the number) to investigate and prosecute those responsible for Fast and Furious; AND to place such appropriation at the disposal of an assembly established and supervised by petitioners for such purpose. See (http://redressone.wordpress.com/pwr-pet/)

The States are pathetic. Language like “a personal firearm,… THAT REMAINS EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN THE BORDERS OF THIS STATE” is laughable.

These absurd State bills do more harm than good to themselves and others—bills of surrender and submission that do nothing whatsoever to send the needed blunt message to their agent that encroachments upon their sovereignty, rights & jurisdiction shall no longer be tolerated. Instead, the language of these bills is akin to a cowering request, w/ a rider: “oh please don’t get upset and hurt us [any more than you already have]”.

They suggest the States are not the sovereigns but rather the Federal govt is the sovereign over them—as if the States are mere colonies created by the Federal govt and the People are its subjects to be governed; that the States aren’t meant to trade whatever they please without the consent of Congress; that Congress has the whole power of legislation over them; and, worse, Congress can regulate non-commercial traffic of whatever sort between State and State. In fact, using proper construction of the Constitution’s plain words, considering ALL parts TOGETHER (not expounding ala cart) and taking into consideration the fundamental principles upon which the Constitution is based and fundamental purpose of UNION, the complete opposite is obvious.

To suggest Congress has such authority over the States is to suggest Congress can disarm the States, at its pleasure and render the 2nd Amendment utterly impotent and without meaning using embargos & blockades under the pretext of regulating commerce, and under the same pretext cut off or restrict the manufacture & sale of ARMS, etc by imposing intrusive regulations & licensing of raw materials and parts needed for manufacture and ownership.

Considering the power to impose such DIRECT prohibitions and trade restrictions is not in the power to regulate commerce but the power of war, Congress is actually committing aggressions against the States using its war powers to regulate trade and manufactures. Is this what the States intended when they GRANTED and entrusted their AGENT with these powers—to use them for what was never intended and commit aggressions against us?

Consider the power to regulate commerce as it stood on Sept. 15, 1787 during debates as to whether a clause should be inserted to restrain the States from “laying tonnage”:

–Mr. Govr Morris. The States are NOT restrained from laying tonnage as the Constitution now Stands.

–Mr. Madison. Whether the States are now restrained depends on the extent of the power to regulate commerce…but seem to EXCLUDE this power of the States.

–Mr. Sherman. The power of the U.S. to regulate trade being supreme can controul INTERFERENCES of State regulations WHEN such happens; so there is no danger to be apprehended from CONCURRENT jurisdiction.

–Mr. Langdon insisted that the regulation of tonnage was an essential part of the regulation of trade, and the States ought to have nothing to do with it.

It passed in the negative, but was REMOULDED and then passed as: “No State shall without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage…”

So, if the power to regulate commerce was intended to be a broad discretionary power, then why put such explicit language in the Constitution unless the power to regulate commerce was THE OPPOSITE. This alone provides the plain proof beyond any doubt that the power to regulate commerce is NOT a broad discretionary power but a VERY NARROW ONE—a power that the framers considered to be safe without having to add limitations as was needed for other more dangerous powers.

But let’s not stop with just this proof. There are many more, with nothing in the whole works of the convention suggesting anything contrary.

Consider the liberty of the Press, that FAILED to get inserted into the main body of the Constitution for good reason, made plain by Mr Sherman, Sept 14, 1787—a right supposedly guaranteed by the 1st Amendment, which we know is not a constraint on the power to regulate commerce (since that power does not extend directly to the objects themselves or their manufacturer), but on the power to tax. Even though Congress was never granted power to regulate objects DIRECTLY (other than those few expressly enumerated), it nevertheless still has power to regulate objects INDIRECTLY using indirect means, to wit, via excises:

–Mr. Pinkney & Mr. Gerry, moved to insert a declaration “that the liberty of the Press should be inviolably observed.”

–Mr. Sherman. It is unnecessary. The power of Congress does NOT extend to the Press.

On the question, to insert that declaration: it FAILED.

We now have two exceptional proofs that the power to regulate commerce does NOT extend directly to the objects themselves; for, if it did, there would be every cause for alarm and the declaration to preserve the liberty of the Press would have been inserted.

A State, being a sovereign, has a NATURAL right to regulate its own commerce within its own jurisdictions even to extinction if it chooses, but when its regulations interfere with the trade of another State, THAT is when Congress has a duty to intervene and free up the channels of commerce—NOT as an aggressor imposing interferences that hinders, favors one State over another or chokes it off—but, leavening to the States to decide for themselves what they want or don’t want to trade with each other.

Most importantly, consider this: Since the power to regulate commerce was unmistakably inserted for the purpose of peacefully facilitating commerce, then how can Congress, or any branch of the govt for that matter, justify doing the complete opposite and be the source and facilitator of the very kinds of interferences and aggressions that it, for which that power was granted, was meant to guard against—using that power, instead, as a weapon in an oppressive tyrannical manner against the States, and worse, to demand new powers not granted. Not clear on this important point? Let us go to Tuesday, August 21, 1787 and look at the denied power to tax exports—a constraint placed on taxing powers:

–Mr. Gerry was strenuously opposed to the power over exports. It might be made use of to COMPEL the States to comply with the will of the Genl Govt, and to grant it any NEW POWERS which might be DEMANDED…. It will ENABLE the Genl Govt to OPPRESS the States as much as Ireland is oppressed by Great Britain.

So, the prohibition was inserted and to this day denied Congress, even though Congress BLATANTLY violates it. What sense, though, does it make that such a precaution be inserted knowing that the power to regulate commerce would render it moot—unless, of course, the power to regulate commerce is actually VERY NARROW so as having no possibility of encroaching upon and rendering the prohibition ineffective.

Considering what is being defended—the 2nd Amendment, no less—it’s amazing that the only wording that the States can seem to fashion is more a surrender than a defense of their sovereignty and rights—words carefully chosen and arranged so as not to upset their agent that has turned adversary.

Sad to say, but the federal government is the single greatest threat to our liberty we face today. We may fast be approaching the time when we will be forced to choose between the chains of federal slavery or undertaking the second American Revolution to defend ourselves and preserve our liberty. Nullification legislation and acts removing local incidents of firearms manufactured in-state are the best bet we have to avoid tyranny and bloodshed. I hope and pray state legislatures will push back against fed gov and preserve liberty for us and our children.

U.S. Constitution: Art VI: “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” This ordinance is unconstitutional. Lawyered!

@DanielSaccomando ” This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof ” meaning that the laws must be constitutional to be upheld.

January 29, 2013 at 3:30 pm

Patrick Henry Lives

@TannerWilliams @DanielSaccomando But of course, the federal judiciary almost always rules in favor of the federal government, so our only real hope for preserving liberty is our guns and the resolve to remain free.

February 11, 2013 at 8:27 pm

DanielSaccomando

@TannerWilliams @DanielSaccomando But it isn’t the state’s position to determine what is constitutional, it will be up to the Supreme Court, who has time and again said that the right to bare arms isn’t absolute. And, I don’t see the Franklin County Judges, Hon. Steven Cox and Hon. Clay Kellerman, conducting a hearing to determine the constitutionality of any federal law.

@DanielSaccomando you are right also see the 2nd Admendment of the Bill of Right,s A well Regulated Militia ,being nessary to the security of a free state ,the right of the peoplee to keep and bear arms ,shall NOT Be Infringed. what Part of Not Be Infringed.Do our Repersinatives Not Understand in the Webster Dictionary states to break off break ,impair,violate,to brake a law or agreement ) fail to observe the terms of; violate,infringe on or upon to break in on encroach or trespass on. (the rights, patents,ect.of others.)in otherwards not to Change add to or Take away from W e the peoples Rights now lets deal with the Webster,s Dictionary Meaning of What the word Militia means the Defanition is in reality 2 typs #1 milidia a
) Military service ,Soldiery militis) a soldier orig any military force later any army composed of Citizens Rather than professional soldiers called out in time of emergency in the U S all able-bodied Male citizens Between 18 and 45 years old who are not already members of the Regular Armed Forces members of the National Guard and of the reserves of the Army Airforce Coast Guard Navy and Marine Corps constitute the organized Militia all others ,the Unorganized Militia /Militia /Man (Man) .

February 11, 2013 at 8:28 pm

DanielSaccomando

@ShirleyWilliams1 @DanielSaccomando I am not an originalist by any means, but in the spirit of the second amendment I am willing to make an exception: Muskets for everyone!! And the right to own them may not be infringed!! NO MORE LEGAL INTERPRETATION!

Here is the language of the ordinance:
LOCAL 2ND AMENDMENT PRESERVATION ORDINANCE
AN Ordinance, which shall be known and may be cited as the “2nd Amendment Preservation Ordinance.” To prevent federal infringement on the right to keep and bear arms; nullifying all federal acts in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF FRANKLIN COUNTY DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The Franklin County Board of Commissioners finds that:
A. The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
B. All federal acts, laws, orders, rules or regulations regarding firearms are a violation of the 2nd Amendment
SECTION 2: PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL INFRINGEMENT OF THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
A. The Franklin County Board of Commissioners declares that all federal acts, laws, orders, rules, regulations – past, present or future – in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States are not authorized by the Constitution of the United States and violate its true meaning and intent as given by the Founders and Ratifiers; and are hereby declared to be invalid in this county, shall not be recognized by this county, are specifically rejected by this county, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this county.
B. It shall be the duty of the Sheriff of this County to take all measures as may be necessary to prevent the enforcement of any federal acts, laws, orders, rules, or regulations in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
SECTION 3 EFFECTIVE DATE
A. This act takes effect upon approval by the Franklin County Board of Commissioners